Supreme Court Upholds State in Forest Produce Confiscation Case. Vehicle Used for Illicit Timber Transport Liable to Confiscation Under Indian Forest Act as Amended by M.P. Act 9 of 1965 Despite Absence of Express Provision in M.P. Van Upaj Adhiniyam.

Case Note & Summary

This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No.203 of 1983. The dispute concerned the confiscation of a truck bearing No.9493 that was found carrying 22 logs of timber without a permit on October 4, 1983. The Divisional Forest Officer seized the truck under the M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969. A notice was issued on October 5, 1983 to the driver, who consented to compounding of the offence and paid Rs.1,000. The truck was valued at Rs.70,000. After following the prescribed procedure, the truck was confiscated because the value was not paid. The respondent, owner of the truck, challenged the seizure and confiscation in the High Court. The High Court held that the Act did not provide power of confiscation of the truck under Section 19(1)(b); that by operation of Section 22 of the Act, the Central Forest Act, 1927 as amended by the State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 was not applicable to confiscation of the truck; and that since the Divisional Forest Officer had neither produced the truck before a criminal court nor laid a charge-sheet, the confiscation was without authority of law. The High Court directed release of the vehicle. Pending appeal in the Supreme Court, the vehicle was released to the respondent on furnishing security of Rs.25,000. The core legal issue was whether the High Court's view was correct. The State argued that Section 15 provided for seizure, Section 19 gave power to compound the offence including payment of compensation for release of seized vehicle and confiscation of specified forest produce, and Section 22 excluded only specified forest produce. Section 52 of the Forest Act read with the State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 gave power to confiscate vehicle or receptacle used for transportation of forest produce, including specified forest produce; therefore, no express provision was needed in the Act. The respondent argued that the Act occupied the field in respect of specified forest produce with its detailed procedure, and by necessary implication, the Legislature intended not to confiscate vehicle, cart, receptacle or tools; unless it was an offence of forest produce under the Forest Act, Sections 52 to 55 had no application. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Act: Section 2(d), 2(k), 2(1), Section 5, Section 15, Section 19(1)(b), 19(2), and Section 22. It observed that Section 22, as it stood prior to Amendment Acts 15/1987 and 16/1990, provided that nothing in the Indian Forest Act, 1927 shall apply to specified forest produce in respect of matters for which provisions are contained in the Act. The Court held that this exclusion was confined only to specified forest produce and did not extend to vehicles/receptacles used for transporting such produce. The Court noted that the State Amendment Act 9 of 1965 had already occupied the field for confiscation of vehicles and provided a complete procedure under Sections 52, 52-A, 52-B and 53 of the Forest Act; therefore, it was not necessary for the Act to repeat the same procedure. Consequently, the High Court was clearly in error in holding that Section 22 excluded the provisions of the Forest Act in respect of vehicles. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and upheld the confiscation. The release order was made subject to the respondent paying the balance amount after deducting the sum already secured. The Court directed that the sum of Rs.25,800 be realised from the security, and the balance be paid within six months; in default, the State could seize the vehicle if available or proceed against any other property or person of the respondent.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside; confiscation upheld; respondent liable to pay balance amount after adjusting Rs.25,800 security, within six months; in default, State may seize vehicle if available or proceed against other property or person.

Law Points